Could Brentford home the Gloriana instead of Twickenham?

First published
in News
Last updated
by Tom Ambrose, Reporter - Richmond and Twickenham

Twickenham could miss out on the Gloriana, with Brentford waiting in the wings, if there is widespread opposition to the council's proposals.

Richmond Council's plans to provide a permanent home for the Queen's diamond jubilee barge at Orleans Gardens have been met with hostility from campaigners.

A consultation with residents was launched this month and runs until the end of August, but no planning application has been submitted.

Leader of the council Lord True, who previously criticised opponents for spreading "wild rumours", remains bullish that the Gloriana will still come to Twickenham.

He said: "I have got no sense that the Gloriana people or Lord Sterling would wish to go anywhere other than Richmond, I think they see it as a natural home.

"If the people of the borough said this site didn't work, they might well look at other locations and not just in this borough.

"I hope it does not come to that but I am unrepentant about the opportunity to give this to the borough."

He added said he was frustrated by the stream of rumours being spread about the proposals.

One such rumour this week was that Marble Hill Park could be built on to provide a car park for the site.

The council immediately scotched the suggestion as "totally false" while English Heritage, which owns the land, confirmed there were no plans for development.

With Lord True admitting Gloriana and Lord Sterling could yet be forced to consider their options, the Brentford Chamber of Commerce has called for the boat to come to their town.

Brentford Chamber of Commerce president Suzie Betlem said: "We are interested as a chamber, - Gloriana was built here so it would pretty much be coming home.

"It would be good for our local businesses and could possibly be put in an already developed part of Brentford.

"Gloriana was built in Brentford, was launched very close to Brentford and we would welcome her back."

The chamber plans to talk to Hounslow Council and the Canal and River Trust.

A Hounslow Council spokesman said: "We are more than happy to support the campaign to bring the Gloriana back to its rightful berth in Brentford.

"We will work with the Brentford Chamber of Commerce and all relevant authorities to help make this happen.

"The Gloriana’s presence would be a great addition to Brentford’s successful regeneration and would act as a real pull in tourism terms."

This week, schoolchildren visited the site in question at Orleans Gardens for a "picture party" and sketched the idyllic river vista.

Friends of Orleans Riverside spokesman Paul Bigley said the council would destroy an area of natural beauty.

He said: "We are concerned that this is a pre-determined decision and this so-called consultation is only going through the motions before it goes to planning.

"The council will destroy an area of natural beauty and legally protected views, axe many trees, upset the local ecology, create a deep canal next to a playground, increase existing traffic issues as this area is accessed down a narrow one way street originally intended for horses and carts - the list goes on.

"We may be the last generation to have the privilege of this historic view and experience this tranquil oasis of a park - no one can understand the logic for choosing this site."

A Richmond and Twickenham Times online poll, to which 321 readers responded, found that only 21 per cent of voters supported the current plans.

A similar poll on a Brentford news website, getwestlondon.co.uk, found that, as of Wednesday, 95 per cent of people supported the Gloriana residing in Brentford Lock.

A Port of London Authority spokesman said: "We are aware of the outline proposals but have not received a formal application.

"It is therefore too early to form a view but if and when the idea moves forward, we would at that stage consider all relevant issues that any detailed plan might raise for us as the river authority."

Brentford is the natural home to the Gloriana. It's where she was built. We can all share in the craftsmanship of the work when she visits other places along the Thames.
The people of Brentford should have the accolade of providing her with a home.

Brentford is the natural home to the Gloriana. It's where she was built. We can all share in the craftsmanship of the work when she visits other places along the Thames.
The people of Brentford should have the accolade of providing her with a home.Susan Burningham

It is not a question of Twickenham 'missing out' on some goody it does want but of avoiding an imposed overdevelopment which it doesn't want.

This distinction must surely be obvious enough for your reporter to grasp it and report it?

It is not a question of Twickenham 'missing out' on some goody it does want but of avoiding an imposed overdevelopment which it doesn't want.
This distinction must surely be obvious enough for your reporter to grasp it and report it?ChrisSquire

Lets not forget that Chris Squire was either sacked or resigned from his post as LibDem webmaster following the despicable campaign of vilification against those who dared to oppose the LibDem plans to sell off the majority of the Twickenham Riverside site to a luxury homes developer with the obligatory "affordable homes" imposed in less prime parts of the borough. Yet here he is berating the dastardly Tories for their plans to build a boathouse to house the Gloriana in Orleans Gardens. They really have no shame do they?

Who seems to be running the campaign? None other than ex-LibDem candidate Dr Susan Burningham (see above), who failed to be elected in Riverside ward. Now she's lambasting Lord True and the Tories for all she's worth. Where was she when we could have done with a bit of support for our campaign to stop Lourie and his LibDem chums selling off the Riverside? Nowhere - what a surprise!

If I were one of the real campaigners I would think long and hard about getting too close to any political party, particularly the LibDems. They seem to like nothing better than infiltrating and taking over protests,"societies" and "friends"
Alex

Lets not forget that Chris Squire was either sacked or resigned from his post as LibDem webmaster following the despicable campaign of vilification against those who dared to oppose the LibDem plans to sell off the majority of the Twickenham Riverside site to a luxury homes developer with the obligatory "affordable homes" imposed in less prime parts of the borough. Yet here he is berating the dastardly Tories for their plans to build a boathouse to house the Gloriana in Orleans Gardens. They really have no shame do they?
Who seems to be running the campaign? None other than ex-LibDem candidate Dr Susan Burningham (see above), who failed to be elected in Riverside ward. Now she's lambasting Lord True and the Tories for all she's worth. Where was she when we could have done with a bit of support for our campaign to stop Lourie and his LibDem chums selling off the Riverside? Nowhere - what a surprise!
If I were one of the real campaigners I would think long and hard about getting too close to any political party, particularly the LibDems. They seem to like nothing better than infiltrating and taking over protests,"societies" and "friends"
Alexalex twickenham

A simple question for Lord True and the few people who support him on this issue: In what way would it be to the detriment of the borough of Richmond if the Gloriana were to be housed in Brentford?

(By the way, like most residents, I'm not a member or committed supporter of any political party, and find the type of personal political attacks exemplified by the above post extremely unhelpful.)

A simple question for Lord True and the few people who support him on this issue: In what way would it be to the detriment of the borough of Richmond if the Gloriana were to be housed in Brentford?
(By the way, like most residents, I'm not a member or committed supporter of any political party, and find the type of personal political attacks exemplified by the above post extremely unhelpful.)JeremyRodell

JeremyRodell wrote:
A simple question for Lord True and the few people who support him on this issue: In what way would it be to the detriment of the borough of Richmond if the Gloriana were to be housed in Brentford?

(By the way, like most residents, I'm not a member or committed supporter of any political party, and find the type of personal political attacks exemplified by the above post extremely unhelpful.)

Agreed, it would save the borough the £1,000,000 initial cost and any ongoing costs. Definitely a bonus.
As for the personal attacks, it does tell us that thats all they can comment on and are not disputing any claims. Interesting, very interesting.

[quote][p][bold]JeremyRodell[/bold] wrote:
A simple question for Lord True and the few people who support him on this issue: In what way would it be to the detriment of the borough of Richmond if the Gloriana were to be housed in Brentford?
(By the way, like most residents, I'm not a member or committed supporter of any political party, and find the type of personal political attacks exemplified by the above post extremely unhelpful.)[/p][/quote]Agreed, it would save the borough the £1,000,000 initial cost and any ongoing costs. Definitely a bonus.
As for the personal attacks, it does tell us that thats all they can comment on and are not disputing any claims. Interesting, very interesting.dellboy twick.

How much have they spent so far of our taxpayer's money? The figure has slowly crept upward. The Officer at the meeting at the Winchester Hall said £10K, but when pressed to give the correct figure regarding the land survey he admitted to £30K. However since then other expenditure has been revealed - apparently up to £140K for the feasibility study.
This all spent without full Council approval. Cllr Geoffrey Samuel had of course to have known since he's the man responsible for the budget and boasts £4m in reserves. Perhaps when all this is over and the Gloriana put to bed in a modest berth somewhere where she doesn't cause environmental havoc, the Councillors, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, should require True and Samuel to pay our money back.
Several people have pointed out that there is no question within the so called Consultation that allows people to express approval or disapproval for the expenditure. One can only add one's displeasure in the text box which of course will not be counted when they total those for and against.
It is iniquitous that this money plus a further £1m should be spent when only last year Geoffrey Samuel was refusing to release funds to help people over the Christmas period and there were queues at the foodbank.
While True and Samuel may boast reserves of £4m it is not through 'good housekeeping' but rather penny pinching from the community. Where are our schools, libraries, care centres, support for environmental groups, community groups?
This example of abuse of power is one we must all remember. It is not enough to elect people and then allow them to get on with it for for four years. We obviously cannot trust either of the two Parties that sit on the Council, and who can tell if any of the other Parties would be better? Friends of Orleans Gardens, a non-political group has set a wonderful example about real localism and the power of citizens who really care.

How much have they spent so far of our taxpayer's money? The figure has slowly crept upward. The Officer at the meeting at the Winchester Hall said £10K, but when pressed to give the correct figure regarding the land survey he admitted to £30K. However since then other expenditure has been revealed - apparently up to £140K for the feasibility study.
This all spent without full Council approval. Cllr Geoffrey Samuel had of course to have known since he's the man responsible for the budget and boasts £4m in reserves. Perhaps when all this is over and the Gloriana put to bed in a modest berth somewhere where she doesn't cause environmental havoc, the Councillors, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, should require True and Samuel to pay our money back.
Several people have pointed out that there is no question within the so called Consultation that allows people to express approval or disapproval for the expenditure. One can only add one's displeasure in the text box which of course will not be counted when they total those for and against.
It is iniquitous that this money plus a further £1m should be spent when only last year Geoffrey Samuel was refusing to release funds to help people over the Christmas period and there were queues at the foodbank.
While True and Samuel may boast reserves of £4m it is not through 'good housekeeping' but rather penny pinching from the community. Where are our schools, libraries, care centres, support for environmental groups, community groups?
This example of abuse of power is one we must all remember. It is not enough to elect people and then allow them to get on with it for for four years. We obviously cannot trust either of the two Parties that sit on the Council, and who can tell if any of the other Parties would be better? Friends of Orleans Gardens, a non-political group has set a wonderful example about real localism and the power of citizens who really care.Susan Burningham

so Dr Burningham does not trust either of "the two Parties that sit on the Council". I assume then that she has already resigned from the LibDems, for whom she stood unsuccessfully in Riverside Ward in May, and will in future continue her political ambitions as an Independent. Yes?

so Dr Burningham does not trust either of "the two Parties that sit on the Council". I assume then that she has already resigned from the LibDems, for whom she stood unsuccessfully in Riverside Ward in May, and will in future continue her political ambitions as an Independent. Yes?illynillyt

Dr B. here.
No I will not stand as either Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour, UKIP or any other party.
I will be supporting Vince Cable at the election because I do not want to a Conservative M.P. in Twickenham (or anywhere for that matter).
I am all for strategic voting, so if I lived, for example in Lewisham, I would probably vote Labour.
I believe in using my vote, many people fought for the right to vote and I would not waste mine. Watching the people who queued hours to vote in South Africa was very humbling.
I will be far too old to stand as an Independent for the Council in four years time because I believe the job is hands on, although if I were 10 years younger I would consider it.
I would very much like to encourage younger people to take on anyone or any Party when they see an abuse of power and will always do my best to help groups that have a cause in which I believe.
Are you answered? I hope so - now let's get back to the job in hand and Save Orleans Riverside.

Dr B. here.
No I will not stand as either Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour, UKIP or any other party.
I will be supporting Vince Cable at the election because I do not want to a Conservative M.P. in Twickenham (or anywhere for that matter).
I am all for strategic voting, so if I lived, for example in Lewisham, I would probably vote Labour.
I believe in using my vote, many people fought for the right to vote and I would not waste mine. Watching the people who queued hours to vote in South Africa was very humbling.
I will be far too old to stand as an Independent for the Council in four years time because I believe the job is hands on, although if I were 10 years younger I would consider it.
I would very much like to encourage younger people to take on anyone or any Party when they see an abuse of power and will always do my best to help groups that have a cause in which I believe.
Are you answered? I hope so - now let's get back to the job in hand and Save Orleans Riverside.Susan Burningham

1. How does he know that there are only a "few people" who support Lord True on this issue?

2. Mr Rodell might like to reflect on the unpleasant personal attacks on Lord True demonstrated during the RISC campaign which he ran - so please don't give me a hard time about simply reporting past political form of those who seem to be leading lights of the campaign he now supports. He seems to be something of a serial campaigner and self-appointed arbiter of behaviour, so, no wonder he finds my comments "extremely unhelpful".
I think Dr B's last post sums it all up rather well. She stood for the LibDems, she would vote for Labour, elsewhere she said she would sup with the devil to achieve her aim. Is there anything this lady won't do? She seems like a natural LibDem!
Alex

A couple of observations about Mr Rodell's post:
1. How does he know that there are only a "few people" who support Lord True on this issue?
2. Mr Rodell might like to reflect on the unpleasant personal attacks on Lord True demonstrated during the RISC campaign which he ran - so please don't give me a hard time about simply reporting past political form of those who seem to be leading lights of the campaign he now supports. He seems to be something of a serial campaigner and self-appointed arbiter of behaviour, so, no wonder he finds my comments "extremely unhelpful".
I think Dr B's last post sums it all up rather well. She stood for the LibDems, she would vote for Labour, elsewhere she said she would sup with the devil to achieve her aim. Is there anything this lady won't do? She seems like a natural LibDem!
Alexalex twickenham

The Golden Hinde (also a replica boat) is in a wet/dry dock on the Thames and has no boathouse. It’s access is via a locked gate at the end of gang-plank for security. Why can’t Richmond do that, and add a camera or two?

The Gloriana is not more special or more historically important or valuable than the Golden Hinde; in fact it’s arguably less so on all counts. Why does it need a boathouse at all? How often has any prominent vessel on the Thames been seriously vandalised? And even it were sadly damaged, surely repairing it would cost a lot less than cost of the boathouse. Even if you HAD to totally replace the Gloriana in a real act of sabotage (which is unlikely), you could do so many times over with £3m.

As has been said before. The Gloriana is NOT the Mary Rose, such a vessel would warrant all this infrastructure. A simpler and cheaper solution should be sought for LB Richmond or indeed Brentford.

The Golden Hinde (also a replica boat) is in a wet/dry dock on the Thames and has no boathouse. It’s access is via a locked gate at the end of gang-plank for security. Why can’t Richmond do that, and add a camera or two?
The Gloriana is not more special or more historically important or valuable than the Golden Hinde; in fact it’s arguably less so on all counts. Why does it need a boathouse at all? How often has any prominent vessel on the Thames been seriously vandalised? And even it were sadly damaged, surely repairing it would cost a lot less than cost of the boathouse. Even if you HAD to totally replace the Gloriana in a real act of sabotage (which is unlikely), you could do so many times over with £3m.
As has been said before. The Gloriana is NOT the Mary Rose, such a vessel would warrant all this infrastructure. A simpler and cheaper solution should be sought for LB Richmond or indeed Brentford.Doblinski

In my humble opinion Dr Susan Burningham has rather too much to say for herself - all her posts are far longer than those of anyone else. She also obviously seems unable to make up her mind where she stands politically,

In my humble opinion Dr Susan Burningham has rather too much to say for herself - all her posts are far longer than those of anyone else. She also obviously seems unable to make up her mind where she stands politically,Sparkythecat

1. How does he know that there are only a &quot;few people" who support Lord True on this issue?

2. Mr Rodell might like to reflect on the unpleasant personal attacks on Lord True demonstrated during the RISC campaign which he ran - so please don't give me a hard time about simply reporting past political form of those who seem to be leading lights of the campaign he now supports. He seems to be something of a serial campaigner and self-appointed arbiter of behaviour, so, no wonder he finds my comments "extremely unhelpful".
I think Dr B's last post sums it all up rather well. She stood for the LibDems, she would vote for Labour, elsewhere she said she would sup with the devil to achieve her aim. Is there anything this lady won't do? She seems like a natural LibDem!
Alex

Please quote a single instance of "unpleasant personal attacks" RISC made on Lord True, or of my being a "serial campaigner" or a "self-appointed arbiter of behaviour". RISC was critical of Lord True on the issue of the Catholic schools, but has always had a policy of not making personal attacks on anyone.
In my experience, rudeness and personal attacks - to which I have myself been subject on several occasions (such as this one) - usually indicate the absence of substantive arguments.

On the basis of the evidence you and I have seen so far here and elsewhere, it is simply a fact that few people who have expressed a view support Lord True's proposals for the Gloriana. If new evidence comes along to indicate otherwise, then I'll change my mind.

[quote][p][bold]alex twickenham[/bold] wrote:
A couple of observations about Mr Rodell's post:
1. How does he know that there are only a "few people" who support Lord True on this issue?
2. Mr Rodell might like to reflect on the unpleasant personal attacks on Lord True demonstrated during the RISC campaign which he ran - so please don't give me a hard time about simply reporting past political form of those who seem to be leading lights of the campaign he now supports. He seems to be something of a serial campaigner and self-appointed arbiter of behaviour, so, no wonder he finds my comments "extremely unhelpful".
I think Dr B's last post sums it all up rather well. She stood for the LibDems, she would vote for Labour, elsewhere she said she would sup with the devil to achieve her aim. Is there anything this lady won't do? She seems like a natural LibDem!
Alex[/p][/quote]Please quote a single instance of "unpleasant personal attacks" RISC made on Lord True, or of my being a "serial campaigner" or a "self-appointed arbiter of behaviour". RISC was critical of Lord True on the issue of the Catholic schools, but has always had a policy of not making personal attacks on anyone.
In my experience, rudeness and personal attacks - to which I have myself been subject on several occasions (such as this one) - usually indicate the absence of substantive arguments.
On the basis of the evidence you and I have seen so far here and elsewhere, it is simply a fact that few people who have expressed a view support Lord True's proposals for the Gloriana. If new evidence comes along to indicate otherwise, then I'll change my mind.JeremyRodell

Jeremy Rodell knows that he is on pretty safe ground when he asks me to quote several single instances - I'm sorry Mr Rodell but I haven't saved all 222 posts about the RISC campaign. Even if I had, I couldn't face trawling through them again, they were extremely repetitive and very many were obviously created from a template, so its little surprise that the campaign failed.
As to "serial campaigner" - well, here you are again!
"Self appointed arbiter of good taste" - well here you are again!

What I do have are two of the three that I posted on this campaign in November 2012. If you insist I will re-post them however other readers may be less enthusiastic.

As to the apparent paucity of support for Lord True's proposal - is there any wonder that there are only a few doughty souls prepared to face the onslaught from Dr Burningham and her chums on Twickerati? 3 dared to do so in the R&TT - good for them. Mr Rodell makes the usual mistake of assuming that we are fool enough to swallow his line that the articulate local minority who make the most noise represent the majority point of view. I repeat my question. How do you really know?

Why not put your money where your mouth is and conduct a referendum as RUG did over the Twickenham Riverside?
Alex

Jeremy Rodell knows that he is on pretty safe ground when he asks me to quote several single instances - I'm sorry Mr Rodell but I haven't saved all 222 posts about the RISC campaign. Even if I had, I couldn't face trawling through them again, they were extremely repetitive and very many were obviously created from a template, so its little surprise that the campaign failed.
As to "serial campaigner" - well, here you are again!
"Self appointed arbiter of good taste" - well here you are again!
What I do have are two of the three that I posted on this campaign in November 2012. If you insist I will re-post them however other readers may be less enthusiastic.
As to the apparent paucity of support for Lord True's proposal - is there any wonder that there are only a few doughty souls prepared to face the onslaught from Dr Burningham and her chums on Twickerati? 3 dared to do so in the R&TT - good for them. Mr Rodell makes the usual mistake of assuming that we are fool enough to swallow his line that the articulate local minority who make the most noise represent the majority point of view. I repeat my question. How do you really know?
Why not put your money where your mouth is and conduct a referendum as RUG did over the Twickenham Riverside?
Alexalex twickenham

alex twickenham wrote:
Jeremy Rodell knows that he is on pretty safe ground when he asks me to quote several single instances - I'm sorry Mr Rodell but I haven't saved all 222 posts about the RISC campaign. Even if I had, I couldn't face trawling through them again, they were extremely repetitive and very many were obviously created from a template, so its little surprise that the campaign failed.
As to &quot;serial campaigner" - well, here you are again!
"Self appointed arbiter of good taste" - well here you are again!

What I do have are two of the three that I posted on this campaign in November 2012. If you insist I will re-post them however other readers may be less enthusiastic.

As to the apparent paucity of support for Lord True's proposal - is there any wonder that there are only a few doughty souls prepared to face the onslaught from Dr Burningham and her chums on Twickerati? 3 dared to do so in the R&amp;TT - good for them. Mr Rodell makes the usual mistake of assuming that we are fool enough to swallow his line that the articulate local minority who make the most noise represent the majority point of view. I repeat my question. How do you really know?

Why not put your money where your mouth is and conduct a referendum as RUG did over the Twickenham Riverside?
Alex

Others can make up their own minds about Alex's personal attack on me.

He seems not to have read what I said in reply to his (reasonable) challenge about the evidence for support/lack of it for Lord True's proposal. Here is it again: "On the basis of the evidence you and I have seen so far here and elsewhere, it is simply a fact that few people who have expressed a view support Lord True's proposals for the Gloriana. If new evidence comes along to indicate otherwise, then I'll change my mind." In fact as far as I can see, I'm unusual in thinking that the design and location for the boathouse are fine, but objecting to the misuse of £1 million+ of Council taxpayers' money on it (and the underhand way it's being handled).

Maybe there is indeed a silent majority who think that the Council should spend £1 million on housing the Gloriana (plus the costs so far and uncertain ongoing costs). But so far there is no indication that is the case.
The fact that Lord True deliberately keep the whole thing secret - even from his own Twickenham Riverside councillors - till after the election is a strong indication that he also didn't think it would be a popular idea.

(By the way, I'm not involved directly in the campaign. )

[quote][p][bold]alex twickenham[/bold] wrote:
Jeremy Rodell knows that he is on pretty safe ground when he asks me to quote several single instances - I'm sorry Mr Rodell but I haven't saved all 222 posts about the RISC campaign. Even if I had, I couldn't face trawling through them again, they were extremely repetitive and very many were obviously created from a template, so its little surprise that the campaign failed.
As to "serial campaigner" - well, here you are again!
"Self appointed arbiter of good taste" - well here you are again!
What I do have are two of the three that I posted on this campaign in November 2012. If you insist I will re-post them however other readers may be less enthusiastic.
As to the apparent paucity of support for Lord True's proposal - is there any wonder that there are only a few doughty souls prepared to face the onslaught from Dr Burningham and her chums on Twickerati? 3 dared to do so in the R&TT - good for them. Mr Rodell makes the usual mistake of assuming that we are fool enough to swallow his line that the articulate local minority who make the most noise represent the majority point of view. I repeat my question. How do you really know?
Why not put your money where your mouth is and conduct a referendum as RUG did over the Twickenham Riverside?
Alex[/p][/quote]Others can make up their own minds about Alex's personal attack on me.
He seems not to have read what I said in reply to his (reasonable) challenge about the evidence for support/lack of it for Lord True's proposal. Here is it again: "On the basis of the evidence you and I have seen so far here and elsewhere, it is simply a fact that few people who have expressed a view support Lord True's proposals for the Gloriana. If new evidence comes along to indicate otherwise, then I'll change my mind." In fact as far as I can see, I'm unusual in thinking that the design and location for the boathouse are fine, but objecting to the misuse of £1 million+ of Council taxpayers' money on it (and the underhand way it's being handled).
Maybe there is indeed a silent majority who think that the Council should spend £1 million on housing the Gloriana (plus the costs so far and uncertain ongoing costs). But so far there is no indication that is the case.
The fact that Lord True deliberately keep the whole thing secret - even from his own Twickenham Riverside councillors - till after the election is a strong indication that he also didn't think it would be a popular idea.
(By the way, I'm not involved directly in the campaign. )JeremyRodell

Oh my,
This could get as seriously tedious as the RISC campaign, so, in the interest of other readers and unless I get loads of thumbs up to continue this pointless little spat, may I please just say to Jeremy Rodell: Yes dear, whatever you like.
Alex

Oh my,
This could get as seriously tedious as the RISC campaign, so, in the interest of other readers and unless I get loads of thumbs up to continue this pointless little spat, may I please just say to Jeremy Rodell: Yes dear, whatever you like.
Alexalex twickenham

Susan Burningham wrote:
How much have they spent so far of our taxpayer's money? The figure has slowly crept upward. The Officer at the meeting at the Winchester Hall said £10K, but when pressed to give the correct figure regarding the land survey he admitted to £30K. However since then other expenditure has been revealed - apparently up to £140K for the feasibility study.
This all spent without full Council approval. Cllr Geoffrey Samuel had of course to have known since he's the man responsible for the budget and boasts £4m in reserves. Perhaps when all this is over and the Gloriana put to bed in a modest berth somewhere where she doesn't cause environmental havoc, the Councillors, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, should require True and Samuel to pay our money back.
Several people have pointed out that there is no question within the so called Consultation that allows people to express approval or disapproval for the expenditure. One can only add one's displeasure in the text box which of course will not be counted when they total those for and against.
It is iniquitous that this money plus a further £1m should be spent when only last year Geoffrey Samuel was refusing to release funds to help people over the Christmas period and there were queues at the foodbank.
While True and Samuel may boast reserves of £4m it is not through 'good housekeeping' but rather penny pinching from the community. Where are our schools, libraries, care centres, support for environmental groups, community groups?
This example of abuse of power is one we must all remember. It is not enough to elect people and then allow them to get on with it for for four years. We obviously cannot trust either of the two Parties that sit on the Council, and who can tell if any of the other Parties would be better? Friends of Orleans Gardens, a non-political group has set a wonderful example about real localism and the power of citizens who really care.

They still seem to be here! In fact the schools are easier to spot now because they are about to get 6th forms for an investment of about £30 million (also opposed by Lib Dems I seem to recall).

Object to Gloriana if you wish, but do stop making totally irrelevant political points and personal diatribes.

[quote][p][bold]Susan Burningham[/bold] wrote:
How much have they spent so far of our taxpayer's money? The figure has slowly crept upward. The Officer at the meeting at the Winchester Hall said £10K, but when pressed to give the correct figure regarding the land survey he admitted to £30K. However since then other expenditure has been revealed - apparently up to £140K for the feasibility study.
This all spent without full Council approval. Cllr Geoffrey Samuel had of course to have known since he's the man responsible for the budget and boasts £4m in reserves. Perhaps when all this is over and the Gloriana put to bed in a modest berth somewhere where she doesn't cause environmental havoc, the Councillors, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, should require True and Samuel to pay our money back.
Several people have pointed out that there is no question within the so called Consultation that allows people to express approval or disapproval for the expenditure. One can only add one's displeasure in the text box which of course will not be counted when they total those for and against.
It is iniquitous that this money plus a further £1m should be spent when only last year Geoffrey Samuel was refusing to release funds to help people over the Christmas period and there were queues at the foodbank.
While True and Samuel may boast reserves of £4m it is not through 'good housekeeping' but rather penny pinching from the community. Where are our schools, libraries, care centres, support for environmental groups, community groups?
This example of abuse of power is one we must all remember. It is not enough to elect people and then allow them to get on with it for for four years. We obviously cannot trust either of the two Parties that sit on the Council, and who can tell if any of the other Parties would be better? Friends of Orleans Gardens, a non-political group has set a wonderful example about real localism and the power of citizens who really care.[/p][/quote]Dr Burningham asks: " Where are our schools, libraries, care centres, support for environmental groups, community groups".
They still seem to be here! In fact the schools are easier to spot now because they are about to get 6th forms for an investment of about £30 million (also opposed by Lib Dems I seem to recall).
Object to Gloriana if you wish, but do stop making totally irrelevant political points and personal diatribes.Sophrosyne

On the gloriana's own website it says the maintenance will be privately funded,yet no mention on the council website.
In the feasibility study lots of costs for the construction of the boathouse and dock etc. once again nothing about the ongoing maintenance costs.
If these funds were in place I'm sure we would have been informed.
Could it be that it all hinges on the council priming the financial pump to get things moving, which appears a gamble too far( apparently the 1 million is to be borrowed and not taken from council reserves).
So if this does all come to nothing we will be saddled with the cost of the feasibility study and loan costs. The studys' costs, between 30 &140K and the loan estimated at 80K.

On the gloriana's own website it says the maintenance will be privately funded,yet no mention on the council website.
In the feasibility study lots of costs for the construction of the boathouse and dock etc. once again nothing about the ongoing maintenance costs.
If these funds were in place I'm sure we would have been informed.
Could it be that it all hinges on the council priming the financial pump to get things moving, which appears a gamble too far( apparently the 1 million is to be borrowed and not taken from council reserves).
So if this does all come to nothing we will be saddled with the cost of the feasibility study and loan costs. The studys' costs, between 30 &140K and the loan estimated at 80K.dellboy twick.

The suggestion to put the Gloriana in an already developed site on the Thames is a sensible one. The heritage value of this reproduction boat simply does not justify placing a dominant essentially industrial structure on this open space enjoyed by so many. It will block views and spoil the character of the park, and all to lend this boat the benefit of this historical setting and give it pseudo heritage value that will enable it's owners to market it more effectively. That is why Lord Stirling does not favour Brentford as a site. Like most I don't object to the Gloriana but why on earth are we sweeping all planning policies aside and paying for the "privilege" ? That the proposal is not popular was reflected in the poll in this paper with only 21% supporting it.

The suggestion to put the Gloriana in an already developed site on the Thames is a sensible one. The heritage value of this reproduction boat simply does not justify placing a dominant essentially industrial structure on this open space enjoyed by so many. It will block views and spoil the character of the park, and all to lend this boat the benefit of this historical setting and give it pseudo heritage value that will enable it's owners to market it more effectively. That is why Lord Stirling does not favour Brentford as a site. Like most I don't object to the Gloriana but why on earth are we sweeping all planning policies aside and paying for the "privilege" ? That the proposal is not popular was reflected in the poll in this paper with only 21% supporting it.Copthall resident